get_1099_summarySummary of the 1099-NEC amounts owed to contractors for a tax year, per vendor and in total, with the filing deadline. Answers "which contractors need a 1099 this year?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Tax year. Defaults to the current year. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| taxYear | Yes | ||
| vendors | Yes | ||
| filingDeadline | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "filingDeadline": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "taxYear": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "vendors": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "box1Amount": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "vendorName": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "vendorName",
+ "box1Amount",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "taxYear",
+ "count",
+ "total",
+ "filingDeadline",
+ "vendors"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it provides amounts owed per vendor and total, plus the filing deadline, which gives context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behaviors like rate limits or authentication needs, but these are less critical for a read-only summary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that front-load the purpose and include a specific question answer. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only summary tool with an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the summary contains (per vendor, total, filing deadline) and the type of question it answers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'year', which already describes its purpose and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it provides a summary of 1099-NEC amounts owed to contractors by tax year, per vendor and total, with filing deadline, and answers a specific question: 'which contractors need a 1099 this year?' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling summary tools like get_cash_summary or get_expense_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it ('which contractors need a 1099 this year?'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The use case is clear, but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.